Inside ATC - EGPH Video

[ETOPS]

Have to say I found this very instructive...........

https://youtu.be/t5SYQu5AGuk

[Maoraigh1]

An excellent video.
Particularly interesting for me, as this morning I received a "no further action will be taken" email from the CAA following an airspace infringement of Edinburgh Airspace.
I was on Scottish Information from Inverness to Cumbernauld. I returned to Scottish immediately I cleared the Cumbernauld circuit, routing south to Fishburn, and was distracted setting the squawk. Edinburgh had to call Scottish to inform me.
Perhaps someone with knowledge could suggest the best procedure. I saw how easier phoning the flight details made the ATC workload.
I made it to Turweston with no more trouble.
After PPRing Cumbernauld, booking out at Inverness, PPRing Fishburn and Turweston, I never thought of phoning any ATC unit

[flybymike]

I saw how easier phoning the flight details made the ATC workload.

it would be easier still if they just wrote the strip out by hand instead of using that ludicrously complex software interface.

[gordonquinn]

it would be easier still if they just wrote the strip out by hand instead of using that ludicrously complex software interface.

I can see your point but over time I bet they get to navigating it super quick.

[NorthSouth]

Perhaps someone with knowledge could suggest the best procedure.I'm guessing your route was under the Edinburgh CTA with base 2500ft to the south east of Cumbernauld, and you inadvertently flew above 2500?
I'd suggest best procedure if that was your route would be to listen out on 121.205 and set their listening squawk 0440. That way, if you're sticking to your plan there's no need to speak to them, and if they are concerned about your altitude they can call you direct. Only drawback is that it can be very very busy on the EDI Radar frequency so you have to be listening hard all the time in case they call you.

[Herschel Krustofski]

it would be easier still if they just wrote the strip out by hand instead of using that ludicrously complex software interface.

Hit the nail on the head. It is a very poorly designed system that has forgotten about the fact that VFR traffic may want to cross the airspace. I watched the system in action at another airport, and as the controller found in so cumbersome typing in the details for VFR crossing traffic, he kept a scrappy a5 note pad next to him so he could scribble the details down there.

[Maoraigh1]

To NS. Thanks. Your guess is correct. But not to phone as video suggested?

[NorthSouth]

To NS. Thanks. Your guess is correct. But not to phone as video suggested?My understanding was that you weren’t planning to enter Edinburgh’s CAS so no point in phoning them.

[scifi]

So what you are saying, is that the Listening Squawks are just another way of reducing the number of ATC staff required. As they don't need to write up so many strips..?

[Maoraigh1]

I wasn't planning to enter controlled airspace, but on three previous trips I've contacted Edinburgh on the radio, and passed east of them with a discrete squawk. My question about phoning is in relation to the strips workload. I spoke to Newcastle, Durham, London, Leeds Bradford, and East Midlands on my way to Turweston, without entering their airspace. I assume I caused a lot of work in strip filling.

[NorthSouth]

If you're not planning to enter their CAS the assistant will have nothing to write down when you phone up and I suspect it will cause all sorts of additional controller workload to write down that you're routing from A to B, remaining outside CAS, and only requiring a Basic Service.
Better to set the listening squawk and fly your planned route. That way there's no load on the controller at all if s/he sees your squawk and isn't bothered, but allows them to ask you for more info if they need to know exactly what you're up to.

[Bagheera]

This video was taken by a private flier based close to Edinburgh, the commentary given by my colleague was mainly intended for the benefit of other fliers operating out of Glenrothes/ Dundee/ Perth/ Cumbernauld etc who regularly fly in to the Edinburgh CTR close to the airfield.
By all means phone prior to departure from airfields further afield but if you are going to be working Scottish FIR then the likelihood is that they will pass us your details anyway.
The idea of squawking 0440 and listening out on 121.205, when flying close to Controlled Airspace is an excellent one. It is not to reduce controller numbers. It is a way of allowing private fliers the freedom to operate without having to talk to ATC, whilst providing the controller with assurance that, should they need to talk to you and/ or you stray in to controlled airspace then you are available to contact immediately. One thing private fliers may not be aware of is that the separation minima applied by controllers depends on whether an aircraft is identified or unknown. If you are identified we can use traffic information for VFR/IFR or 3 nm/ 1000 ft for IFR/IFR. If you are unknown then we have to use 5 nm / 5000 ft in all circumstances. In a tight and busy approach environment that usually means an infringement of controlled airspace is likely to lead to a loss of separation and lots of paperwork.
One other thing to bear in mind is that the bases of controlled airspace are determined by the local QNH so if you are on a cross country flight underneath controlled airspace, with the regional pressure set in your subscale, then you will always be flying higher than your altimeter is reading. This can lead to unexpected airspace infringements.

As to the clunkiness of EFPS, I've had a mobile phone and a tablet as well for a number of years now, think I've forgotten how to write.

[eagleflyer]

Given that we all work under EASA regulations, these are strange rules! 5nm/5000ft? We´d have to close many airfields working with those numbers.

[Bagheera]

EASA SERA 8010 Separation minima

” a) The selection of separation minima for application within a given portion of airspace shall be made by the ANSP responsible for the provision of air traffic services and approved by the competent authority concerned.”

[eagleflyer]

Yeah, I know. But isn´t it strange how differently our ANSPs / regulators act? For sure I neither envy you nor the GA pilots having to deal with this. Have you ever thought about changing separation minima to make life easier for everyone?

[Gonzo]

eagleflyer, the 5nm and 5000ft applies inside Edinburgh CAS only in the case of unknown airspace infringements, where the infringer is not in communication with ATC. It’s not the usual separation minima applied between known aircraft.

[exlatccatsa]

It applies to Aberdeen as well

[flybymike]

Yeah, I know. But isn´t it strange how differently our ANSPs / regulators act? For sure I neither envy you nor the GA pilots having to deal with this. Have you ever thought about changing separation minima to make life easier for everyone?
That would make infringements less “serious” and reduce prospective customers for the subsequent two hundred quid Airspace infringement awareness courses. ;)

[edinburghpilot]

Absolutely brilliant video. I've been to Edinburgh tower twice and I feel I get value out of it every time. I fly from Perth and Fife and I often receive a zone transit from Edinburgh. I always call ahead and I have never been refused entry due to controller workload.

I think the guys at Edinburgh are great and it's amazing to be able to take family and friends up for a hurl over the bridges or over the city.

Well done to who ever made this video.

[alexbrett]

One thing I picked up on from the video was about the need to 'find a gap' to get VFR traffic across - I was a little confused why this is such a big deal at Edinburgh, as they seem to have up to 6000' available as part of their CTR, so (cloudbase permitting) is there any reason they can't give the traffic on approach a missed approach altitude of e.g. 2000', and cross the VFR traffic above at say 3000', at which point they don't need a gap?

I guess there are some terrain considerations, in that maybe 2000' doesn't work in terms of being terrain safe for the missed approach?

(It's a question I've had in general for airfields, but I've always assumed the bigger London airfields are constrained by the LTMA above which they can't clear VFR traffic into and potentially need all the levels below for vectoring their own traffic around etc)

[mike current]

The published missed approach procedure goes up to 3000'.
2000' wouldn't provide safe terrain clearance for vectoring.